Why legal scholars should not be distressed by Trump!
Since the 8th of November, Trumps’ election became THE TOPIC of any sophisticated discussion, any news review, any comic show or scholars’’ discussion. It seemed like they have all decided that catastrophe had struck.
After listening to Trumps election program for months, a person cannot really blame them; the man has never failed to express his cow-boyish view of the world, considering the globe an open arena for fighting “bad guys” under which a wide spectrum of democrats, liberals, academics, feminists, homosexuals, greens, minorities and practically anyone who is not both American and white fall!
And although it should be irrelevant what non- Americans think, as the American people should be the only ones concerned and they have actually made their choice (Regardless of skeptics), this global interest tells another story.
Such hurly-burly might be comprehensible in “developing” countries, with their limited controls and high vulnerability to great powers policies (In the Syrian case for example, before his election Trump claimed Aleppo will fall, which gave a green light for mass atrocities in the city after his election),
But observing the impact in democratic countries, particularly the European Union, offers a practical embodiment of the extension of the globalization phenomenon.
Although the European Union has, over decades of its’ existence, made a remarkable effort towards creating a unique parallel entity with outstanding possibilities capable of counterbalancing US global infringement and has gone a long way that would have not been possible had member states not made major concessions in terms of cooperation and decision-making, nevertheless, unlike the united states, it failed to establish strong unity, missing out the chance to strike balance and contrive solutions for persisting matters in order to ensure its independence from what is being plotted on the other side of the Atlantic.
Ironically, the fear of losing control in many ways led to this EU failure to regain control. Since member states tenaciously professed the unrealistic concept of state dominance and autonomy denying the urge to change despite all indications of an extended defect within the extremely liberal formulation they have created.
As a result of this halfway policy, European countries found their selves enacting double measures that don’t reflect the European unions’ real asset. On one hand, they individually adhere to the principle of state sovereignty (like any other state with no pioneer project); then conversely, they shadow American policies that provide new “soft law” binding provisions crossing all guarded sovereignty barriers and borders. The only notable common factor between both enacted measures is their failure in various notions to respect international human rights (Refugee rights/Right to fair trial whatever the charge is…); a strength point EU is alleged to have.
But then again, this is nothing but natural progressions. New laws always evolve to serve new emerging needs and this always threatens the existence of any stiff legal structures unable (or unwilling) to adapt.
Thus, as Sapiens built their civilization on a legend that enabled them to convoy change, so does USA today clout to form its own hierarchical legal structure while the rest of the world seek to refine their laws and regulations to suit the new Hierarchy of the legal pyramid that ostensibly won’t reflect neither sovereignty nor established democratic values. Those values which granted the world Trump (and the world to Trump in that sense), are probably the most legal still-activated laws today according to our former legal heritage. One that is slowly fading as it becomes less adapt-full and thus less useful. The only assumed familiar “discourse” remaining will be security as it seems.
Therefore, in a way, the election of Trump might in fact be the last of democracy as we know it: the corner stone upon which all expanded powers of the states should be based. That is a very good reason why legal scholars ought to value such a democratic process and not take it for granted. Come what may, the disadvantages of democracy bringing undesirables to power, is overshadowed by the advantages of them leaving within a few years without the need to revolt against a successor who thinks he inherited the nation! A lesson well learned in other parts of this world!
Bibliography:
- Y.N.Harari; Sapiens, a brief history of humankind
- Clemens Kaupa; What is law?
- Chalmers, Davies & Monti; European Union Law
- Pauwelyn, Wassel & Wouters; When structures become shackles
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-2nd-2016-presidential-debate/trump-disagrees-with-pence-on-syria-says-aleppo-is-gone/?utm_term=.c27dd46ce4b8
